"For each point prevented" seemed like unusual templating to me so I went looking for what real template might be. It's "for each 1 damage prevented" as seen on Vigor. Fun fact: There actually is one card that says "for each point", but it's "for each point of Bushido" on Takeno, Samurai General.
Honestly, the idea of turning damage prevention into something as a combat trick is interesting enough to me that I don't think it needs the modal stuff. Either make it +1/+1 counters at uncommon or card draw (and high CMC) at rare.
If we want this as a combat trick, and to be worthy of an uncommon slot, it should prevent + pump. At common, one of the two is fine, but at uncommon, it's generally both.
Keeping most, including damage prevention: Trivial Defense {2}{W} Instant Put a +1/+1 counters on target creature. Prevent all damage that would be dealt to that creature this turn. Gain 2 life.
This seems functional, if a bit overbearing. I think for an uncommon, we could use that much text, but that doesn't mean we should. In order to consolidate it, I'd probably make it into something like this:
Triumphant Defense {2}{W} Instant Put a +1/+1 counter on target creature. That creature gains lifelink and indestructible this turn.
As an aside, hello again everyone! I'm back after a move and such. Good to be back :)
Oh, I really like the "turning damage into something else" effect.
This seems to have an awful lot good ideas ideas wrapped up in one card.
Is this going to be preventing less than three damage more than half the time? If not, it's not really gaining anything from tying them together, the latter modes could call be a flat 3.
I'm bad at judging what's too good, but all the rewards are fairly significant and mostly not that time sensitive, so is requiring damage to be dealt enough of a hurdle to temper them? Would a 2W uncommon instant that did "gain 12 life" be ok? What about "draw three cards"? Is this enough worse than those that it's ok?
My other immediate question is, "prevent damage to" and "prevent damage by" are often the same. Is prevent damage by" the right choice here? I'm not sure of the pros and cons.
I feel like the "turn damage into something" would be more clearly conveyed if it was on a spell (possibly rare) that prevented all damage, so the amount of reward you got varied more. But some of these rewards wouldn't be ok as open-ended.
I made the same mistake when first reading this card, but I think you're only allowed to pick each mode once. This isn't "prevent 3 damage, draw 3 cards".
I think Jack is wondering about removing the 'different' rider and letting players choose the same mode more than once. That's definitely a deal breaker for the card-draw mode in mono-white.
"To" requires you to choose creature or player (or pw) or to specify all, which is wordy. I could see this preventing damage to a creature, but not to a player, because that would make it easier to prevent more damage.
Preventing less than 3 damage does seem like it would happen infrequently enough that it's not worth all the text, and I think preventing all damage so the scaling really matters is a great call.
I'm not a huge fan of the "for each point" wording, but that's not a big deal. However, I really don't like that casting this with an empty board forces you to buff your opponent's creature (if you prevented 3 damage). The targeting of that mode has weird timing too. Do I target as I cast the spell, even though I haven't chosen that mode yet?
I was originally thinking what this card needed was to remove the choice of which mode fires with each damage prevented. Firstly, the choice is usually trivial: Draw first, then +1/+1, then life; with life occasionally coming earlier when you're on death's door. Second, the scaling condition is more exciting when the best stuff comes last.
Prevent the next 3 damage a source of your choice would deal this turn. If 1 damage is prevented this way, gain 3 life. If 2, put a +1/+1 counter on target creature. If 3, draw a card.
But I think it's more important to let the player dream big and always leave wanting more, which we can accomplish by scaling without limit (and that wants a single reward type).
Prevent all damage a source of your choice would deal this turn. For each point prevented this way, bolster 1.
Cool Card Design of the Day
"For each point prevented" seemed like unusual templating to me so I went looking for what real template might be. It's "for each 1 damage prevented" as seen on Vigor. Fun fact: There actually is one card that says "for each point", but it's "for each point of Bushido" on Takeno, Samurai General.
ReplyDeleteHonestly, the idea of turning damage prevention into something as a combat trick is interesting enough to me that I don't think it needs the modal stuff. Either make it +1/+1 counters at uncommon or card draw (and high CMC) at rare.
ReplyDeleteSo Test of Faith?
Delete"Draw that many cards" is novel and exciting. Definitely WU.
After the confluence cycle shouldn't this say "For each 1 damage prevented chose one. You can't chose the same mode more than once"?
DeleteSorry, meant to post this under Burzolog.
DeleteIf we want this as a combat trick, and to be worthy of an uncommon slot, it should prevent + pump. At common, one of the two is fine, but at uncommon, it's generally both.
ReplyDeleteKeeping most, including damage prevention:
Trivial Defense {2}{W}
Instant
Put a +1/+1 counters on target creature. Prevent all damage that would be dealt to that creature this turn.
Gain 2 life.
This seems functional, if a bit overbearing. I think for an uncommon, we could use that much text, but that doesn't mean we should. In order to consolidate it, I'd probably make it into something like this:
Triumphant Defense {2}{W}
Instant
Put a +1/+1 counter on target creature. That creature gains lifelink and indestructible this turn.
As an aside, hello again everyone! I'm back after a move and such. Good to be back :)
Welcome back, Skye.
DeleteTriumphant Defense feels pretty different even though it's functionally very close. It's a ton simpler, and plenty enticing. Nice.
Oh, I really like the "turning damage into something else" effect.
ReplyDeleteThis seems to have an awful lot good ideas ideas wrapped up in one card.
Is this going to be preventing less than three damage more than half the time? If not, it's not really gaining anything from tying them together, the latter modes could call be a flat 3.
I'm bad at judging what's too good, but all the rewards are fairly significant and mostly not that time sensitive, so is requiring damage to be dealt enough of a hurdle to temper them? Would a 2W uncommon instant that did "gain 12 life" be ok? What about "draw three cards"? Is this enough worse than those that it's ok?
My other immediate question is, "prevent damage to" and "prevent damage by" are often the same. Is prevent damage by" the right choice here? I'm not sure of the pros and cons.
I feel like the "turn damage into something" would be more clearly conveyed if it was on a spell (possibly rare) that prevented all damage, so the amount of reward you got varied more. But some of these rewards wouldn't be ok as open-ended.
I made the same mistake when first reading this card, but I think you're only allowed to pick each mode once. This isn't "prevent 3 damage, draw 3 cards".
DeleteI think Jack is wondering about removing the 'different' rider and letting players choose the same mode more than once. That's definitely a deal breaker for the card-draw mode in mono-white.
Delete"To" requires you to choose creature or player (or pw) or to specify all, which is wordy. I could see this preventing damage to a creature, but not to a player, because that would make it easier to prevent more damage.
Preventing less than 3 damage does seem like it would happen infrequently enough that it's not worth all the text, and I think preventing all damage so the scaling really matters is a great call.
Oops, sorry! I did just miss that it was supposed to be a different mode each time. That makes more sense (although I still find it hard to evaluate).
DeleteI'm not a huge fan of the "for each point" wording, but that's not a big deal. However, I really don't like that casting this with an empty board forces you to buff your opponent's creature (if you prevented 3 damage). The targeting of that mode has weird timing too. Do I target as I cast the spell, even though I haven't chosen that mode yet?
ReplyDeleteAdding "you control" to the counter mode is a pretty easy upgrade (costing us only the elegance of each mode fitting on one line).
DeleteBecause that damage might not occur until much later in the turn, you'd have to choose targets then. Carom makes me think the wording is fine.
I was originally thinking what this card needed was to remove the choice of which mode fires with each damage prevented. Firstly, the choice is usually trivial: Draw first, then +1/+1, then life; with life occasionally coming earlier when you're on death's door. Second, the scaling
ReplyDeletecondition is more exciting when the best stuff comes last.
Prevent the next 3 damage a source of your choice would deal this turn. If 1 damage is prevented this way, gain 3 life. If 2, put a +1/+1 counter on target creature. If 3, draw a card.
But I think it's more important to let the player dream big and always leave wanting more, which we can accomplish by scaling without limit (and that wants a single reward type).
Prevent all damage a source of your choice would deal this turn. For each point prevented this way, bolster 1.
Sick anti-Blasphemous Act tech.
DeleteThis seems pretty exciting for LSPs, but also seems like it'll be a huge gotcha for them too, as the counter is added after damage occurs.
ReplyDeleteBetter: "choose a different option" -> "choose one"
ReplyDeleteBest: only provide one option (the +1/+1 counter mode seems the most balanced at this cost)